October 31, 2007

"If you watched their debate last week, I seemed to be the topic of great conversation and consternation. And that's for a reason: because I have stood against George Bush and his failed policies."

That's the reason. That or the fact that she's obviously going to be the Democratic Party's nominee.

ADDED: I loved Hillary's new fashion. She's put aside those atrocious, orange/turquoise, nubby jackets and gone back to the black pantsuit idea of old. What made it seem new and fresh was the thin brown trim along the jacket's lapel, and the repetition of brown in the top and the pocket handkerchief. A gold necklace provided the only flash. I thought this was intelligent and serious, a much more appropriate look for a President that those colorful jackets that seem to plead with us to see her as a woman. The brown and black was subtly womanly. Less is more.

AND: Hey, check it out. Andrew Sullivan called me "batty" for saying that I liked Hillary Clinton's fashion. What's going on there? I could say a million things, but out of discretion, I will hold my tongue.

The bitch wouldn't answer the question of whether illegal immigrants should be given driver's licenses. And with the help of the WaPo and the rest of the MSM, who'll sweep her non-answer under the rug, she'll get away with it. Welcome to our progressive future.

biden had it right regarding the gop. the democrats should remember the rule of never eating their young. everyone hold tight. the gop has nothing to offer and doesn't have a dog in this fight yet. let the dems sort out top dog.

What would 99% of the wing nuts here do without the Bill and Hillary OBSESSION? It was a "debate"...and people answer questions the best they can without getting into trouble. (Remember G.W. telling the world that he wasn't a "nation builder"...or that he was for "smaller government"...or that he was going to "spend less taxpayer money?")

Here's the one I loved the most: "But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book."

Try to imagine how many time she and the others have been asked the very same questions over the past year+ by every yahoo who can stand at a microphone or has a camera.

What...200...300...400 times?

The campaign is soooooooooooo long...and we still have another 12 months...they spend most of their time just trying NOT to say something really stupid or that would turn their base against them.

*Bush has been in office for 7 years and he STILL says something stupid every week...you know, things like...World War III??

former law student said..."HRC is Giuliani in a pantsuit. Can anyone point to where their policies would differ -- aside from Rudy's current pandering to conservatives?"

Why am I suddenly reminded of all those Nader voters who claimed that there'd be no substantive difference between Al Gore and that George Bush fellow? How'd that work out? I'm not going to spend hours delineating how their policies would be different, so to encapsulate it neatly, do you think there's no difference between appointing Diane Sykes to the Supreme Court (Rudy) or Kathleen Sullivan (Hillary)?

AllenS said..."Repeal Amendment XIX."

It's become somewhat superfluous in view of the Supreme Court's subsequent jurisprudence on the right to vote. Even if you repealed the 19th Amendment, and even if any state was mad enough to then deny women the right to vote would be dragged into federal court on an equal protection claim.

Hoosier Daddy said..."I haven't heard Rudy tell me that he's going to take more money away from me for the common good."

She didn't limit it to just money she was going to take away from you on behalf of the common good.

Luckyoldson said..."What would 99% of the wing nuts here do without the Bill and Hillary OBSESSION?"

Simon,You couldn't even begin to compare the left's "obsession" with the mistakes and missteps of the Bush administration with what the Americans have seen from the right and the Clintons.

My problem with George W. Bush has nothing to do with what he wears, his daughters, his wife or his family in general. It's his mismanagement of the country's affairs that bothers me and about 70% of the American public.

The right's problems with Bill and Hillary relate to everything from what she wears, who he fucks, how she laughs, her weight, her legs, his diet, their daughter, and many other purely ridiculous elements of their lives and personalities.

*Am I to assume you don't remember the 8 years of Ken Starr and the 70 million spent?

The right's problems with Bill and Hillary relate to everything from universal health care, massive tax increases, redistribution of wealth ($5000 for every newborn), and insisting on the village raising my kid.

The vein throbs in Lucy's temple. "They're at it again, the suckfest continues." she snarls. "Bush has killed millions and all these racist assholes can do is piss and moan about Hillary." Reaching for the tiny bottle of pills that reside on her monitor Lucy accidentally knocks over the GWB voodoo doll with her elbow. Picking it up she inspects its many cigarette burns and the cuts made by her Swiss army knife. "Mission accomplished my ass," she mutters as she flings the doll into the dark, trash-filled corner. Lucy swallows several of the fat Lortabs and follows them with a swing of Jim Beam. “It’s gonna be a long day in the hell that is the Althouse blog,” she mumbles as she hits the refresh button.

(From Chapter One of “Hate Me, Hate You, A Tale of Despair and Loathing in The 21st Century.)

It's a bit depressing to think that we've got another 12 months of having to listen to all of this, as the same stuff gets shouted with increasing volume and intensity. And they, the day after the election, it starts all over again in anticipation of '12. The scariest costume anyone could wear today would be a sartorial interpretation of the political calendar.

Lucy had been married once to John Hsu, a Master Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps. In 1999 John retired from the Marines, divorced Lucy, and fled to Thailand. She never forgave him. Lucy knew John hated African Americans so in January of 2000 Lucy began an affair with John’s former boss Major James Sampler, a large black man from Idaho. She sent John numerous DVDs of the sex she performed on James until John responded with his own DVD in December of 2000. John had opened a whorehouse on Patpong road and was regularly serviced by an unending stream of talent. One of John’s girls had given birth to a boy who John named George B. Hsu just to piss Lucy off.

(From Chapter Two of “Hate Me, Hate You, A Tale of Despair and Loathing in The 21stCentury.)

The right's problems with Bill and Hillary relate to everything from universal health care, massive tax increases, redistribution of wealth ($5000 for every newborn), and insisting on the village raising my kid.

I think you have to leaven what they say with the absolute knowledge that most of what they are saying is lies. Sure, in an ideal world, they would like to do all those things. And they probably will raise taxes. But as we saw with Bill Clinton, if it's a choice between implementing the policies they like and exercising power, they'll choose exercising power.

His conventional Left-wing agenda was a miserable political failure in 1993-1994 (the 1994 elections gave us the first Republican Congress in 40 years), so he spent the next 6 years basically governing like a Republican and stabbing his party in the back at every turn. As I always trot out in these contexts, he gutted welfare, signed NAFTA (weakening American unions even further -- actually done in 1992-1993), signed the PSLRA (making it harder to sue megacorporations and their managers for securities fraud), signed the Defense of Marriage Act (banning homosexual marriages), and even had microinitiatives that line up not with a liberal social agenda, but with a fairly Right social agenda: V-chip censorship and school uniforms. Not exactly hippy-dippy lefty stuff here. He was like a left-wing mirror image of Nixon -- implementing all his enemies' policies and earning their eternal enmity in return. And getting impeached for his troubles, of course.

Unfortunately, Clinton II seems more determined and more principled than her husband. But there's still reason to hope that what she believes in her heart of hearts will have approximately zero correlation with what she does as president.

Garage: Its the president's responsibilty, given his leadership position and knowledge to do what is right, regardless of what the political climate is. That Republicans were obsessed with stains on dresses, is no excuse for inaction in the face of a growing threat thoughout his entire presidency. He did NOTHING.

Your comeback is the equivalent of blaming your divorce on the way the three year old twins behave.

Simon - "Repeal Amendment XIX."It's become somewhat superfluous in view of the Supreme Court's subsequent jurisprudence on the right to vote. Even if you repealed the 19th Amendment, and even if any state was mad enough to then deny women the right to vote would be dragged into federal court on an equal protection claim.

I am surprised at Simon's digression from his usually on spot legal comments. An Amendment subsequently wipes out all SCOTUS jurisprudence arising from rulings on previous hearings of the un-Amended Constitutional issue

And an Amendment supercedes all previous Amendments - meaning the Amendment on Prohibition doesn't automatically block an Amendment repealing prohibition any more than the 14th Amendment blocks repeal of the 19th. Only that no Amendment shall block the equal sufferage of States in the Senate..

Which wouldn't happen unless all the Lesbians moved to Vermont and kicked all the gays out to Key West and San Fran...

**********************

Not that I think the woman's vote should be repealed...but an analysis shows some interesting things on how the woman's vote may have shifted US and Euro politics.

1. Democracy is now far more susceptable to emotional issues - It's For The Children!! The Children!! Various Safety Nazi laws and Nanny State rules - with the women's vote.

2. Studies have proven that women will select the taller and better-looking of candidates. Who they "heart!". They may not know what Obama stands for, but he is so cute how can they resist supporting him? Unless it is because it is Hillary!! with appropriate fashion sense...and it is Our Time!

3. In Europe, without the woman's vote, policies would be substantially different regarding military spending and mass immigration of Muslims and "poor, suffering African children". Profound gender divergence is noted on a spectrum of issues, and the gap is widening between the genders on those issues over the decades.

4. It might be important for societies to look at various "eras" of democracy and enfranchisement and see that votes become quite different as groups were enfranchised..and note that in how history looks at events and how the democratic process shapes things.Lincoln likely would have been voted out of office in 1864 if women had been allowed to vote. They were dismayed by the carnage. France would have pulled out of WWI in defeat if woman had a say. The restriction of the vote to white, productive men only in the 19th Century shaped America's decisions - many which would have gone otherwise or introduced a whole different set of elected officials (taller, better-looking, full heads of hair) if women had voted...and a different urban development down South if blacks had control of it;s cities in the 19th annd most of the 20th Century.

But as America seems to becoming more dysfunctional over time with universal sufferage, so too with other democracies that see Asia as far better ruled and competitive.....reconsidering limited sufferage is not unthinkable. Why should we extend "equal right to vote" to a parasitic non-contributor to society? Why allow someone with dual, triple, even quadruple citizenship to be allowed to vote in America?

That Republicans were obsessed with stains on dresses, is no excuse for inaction in the face of a growing threat thoughout his entire presidency. He did NOTHING.

The Bush administration did less than nothing. Al-Qaeda struck on Bush's watch, not Bill's. They waited for the weakling to take over -- the stunned zombie who continued to read the child's storybook, who hid from America for days, causing some to remember the previous time he went AWOL while in the service of his country.

former law student said..."The Bush administration did less than nothing. Al-Qaeda struck on Bush's watch, not Bill's. They waited for the weakling to take over -- the stunned zombie who continued to read the child's storybook, who hid from America for days, causing some to remember the previous time he went AWOL while in the service of his country."

Cedarford:"An Amendment subsequently wipes out all SCOTUS jurisprudence arising from rulings on previous hearings of the un-Amended Constitutional issue ... And an Amendment supercedes all previous Amendments - meaning the Amendment on Prohibition doesn't automatically block an Amendment repealing prohibition any more than the 14th Amendment blocks repeal of the 19th."

I'm not sure how your point here's in tension with mine, but perhaps it'd help clarify the point if I pointed out that I was replying to the quoted text ("Repeal Amendment XIX"). The point I was making was that under the Supreme Court's extant jurisprudence on the equal protection clause and voting rights, it's very likely you'd be able to demolish laws standing athwart women's voting rights even if the Nineteenth Amendment had never been passed, and even if it was now repealed. That the Nineteenth Amendment does so legitimately

former law student said..."Simon, certainly the Defense of Marriage Act does not ban same sex marriage; it simply refuses to recognize them."

And more importantly, prevents one state from imposing its definition on any other state. States are free under DOMA to set whatever marriage laws they like. And the federal government refusing to provide rewards (for want of a better general and neutral term) for a given behavior is a far cry from banning that behavior.

Lucy loved and hated the internet at the same time. She could be anybody she wanted to be instead of the 4’11” 230 pound bundle of hate she really was. Lucy could be a strong and forceful man who said things like, “blow me.”

What Lucy hated though was the idea that those who disagreed with her could voice their opinions. Lucy hated the hating haters and thought that if only she could harass them enough then she would win the big prize.

(From Chapter Three of “Hate Me, Hate You, A Tale of Despair and Loathing in The 21stCentury.)

Lucy’s rectal itch was bothering her again. Taking her right hand off the keyboard she worked her fingers down the back of her sweatpants and began relieving her discomfort. She had named her hemorrhoids and the one that was particularly irritating her today was Rummy. “It’s always been that bastard Rummy,” she hissed. She pulled her hand out of her pants and typed BLOW ME in capitals and then clicked on the publish button.

(From Chapter Four of “Hate Me, Hate You, A Tale of Despair and Loathing in The 21stCentury.)

Er... what? He addressed the nation that evening. How exactly does one go about "hiding from the nation" on a national television broadcast?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming you aren't complaining that he failed to disclose his current location publicly. That would be an amazingly stupid thing to expect the commander in chief to do following a surprise attack on the United States, and I'm doing you the honor of assuming you're smarter than that.

By Allan Wood, Paul Thompson,“project managers” of certain investigative projects hosted by the Cooperative Research website.

At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television.

So why, at 9:03 a.m.—fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack—did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op? No one knows the answer to that question. In fact, no one has even asked Bush about it.

There are many questions that deserve answers. So many pieces of the puzzle do not fit. Simply by reading the mainstream media reports, we can see that mere incompetence doesn’t explain what happened to Bush on that day. For instance, it makes no sense that Bush would listen to a story about a goat long after being told the US was under attack, and even after the Secret Service decided to immediately evacuate him from the school. It defies explanation that Air Force One’s fighter escort took two hours to appear. And it is mind-boggling that there are seven different versions of how Bush learned about the first crash.

"The bitch wouldn't answer the question of whether illegal immigrants should be given driver's licenses. And with the help of the WaPo and the rest of the MSM, who'll sweep her non-answer under the rug, she'll get away with it.Welcome to our progressive future."

Obviously, because she is in FAVOR of drivers licenses for illegals. After all, she is in favor open borders and unrestricted imports. She an internationalist and like most Democrats considers herself a "citizen of the world".

Not that there is anything wrong with that. In any case, its hard to see how anyone could more internationalist than McCain, George Bush, or Gulliani.

Cedarford: Excellent analysis but irrelevant. The power elite long ago discovered they can use the SCOTUS to impose their policies on the American people, without regard to constitutional text or using the democratic process. All you need is five philosopher Kings "untethered" to the "living" constitution and any law can be overturned or new right "discovered".

Revenant said..."Er... what? He addressed the nation that evening. How exactly does one go about 'hiding from the nation' on a national television broadcast?"

To say nothing of the press conference -- carried live, IIRC, on most major networks -- that he conducted before leaving the Fla. school.

Luckyoldson said..."'At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television. So why, at 9:03 a.m. — fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack — did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders....'" (emphasis added; quoting Wood & Thompson).

Really? It was clear (it was either instantly obvious or became clear in the ensuing fifteen minutes, either way without any benefit of hindsight) after the first plane hit that we were under terrorist attack? That's pretty tenuous. My recollection is that for the overwhelming majority of people, and certainly the assumption of every network covering it, the assumption in the moment was that it was a ghastly accident. That it was a terrorist attack became clear when the second plane hit, and perhaps you can say that if there'd been a longer gap between the first and second planes people would have started to question the "accident" assumption, but that's speculative and irrelevant. I think you'd have to engage in pretty serious hindsight bias to think it was "clear" after the first plane hit that we were under attack. Wait, hindsight bias about 9/11? I forgot who I was talking to....

By the way, does anyone else second this question for LOS: do you just not know how to post links, or do you just have some pathological aversion to doing so? I mean, when you simply fail to back up your assertions with links, that's pathetic but at least understandable (you don't want to have to back up your assertions, you want other people to do your research to prove you wrong, we've seen this over and over again), but when you're posting obviously cut-and-pasted text, it becomes absolutely incomprehensible why you will virtually never include a link to the source (a habit which often blurs the line between excessive reposting and outright plagiarism, since it's not always immediately apparent that what you're quoting's someone else's work).

Hillary's voting Republican ? Aside from the fact that that means the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats, this just goes to show that all women are as terminally confused by feminism as Ann Althouse is. See below: Ann Althouse said... TC, you can be a commenter here if and only if you keep your posts to 200 words or less... You can put your longer material on your own blog ( jewsyonkersialamiii-tc.blogspot.com )...I'm not imposing this word limit on anyone else...Some of the best commenters (and bloggers) put effort into producing pithy one liners.... 6:14 AM" 200 words or less...(only TC has) this word limit...produc(e) pithy one liners " Just like I've always noted, women/feminists oppose all censorship -except if its anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti- lesbian... And my dear friend Ann Althouse is no different from any other woman...beautiful but near-terminally confused by feminist nonsense. What can a man do ? Women rule the world, no matter what. So feminism itself must be totally destroyed -along with its destructive excesses and crudities. And all women must be allowed to see feminism's horrors -otherwise nothing will change. And we'll all die -shortly. " (P)ithy one-liners" ? That's the problem with today's world. We have the attention spans of cocker spaniels, the world is dying and nobody realizes this because nobody takes a longer look at things than a "sound bite". 4:53 PM

Simon,I gave up ever hoping for a reasoned argument from LOS or Cyrus, much less a pertinent link.

For example, in re "after being told America was under attack", he errs by assuming that was what he was in fact told, and that... aw, screw it.

He's going to be chewing that same piece of cud in the nursing home, and all his poor neighbors will be shutting off their hearing aides for the afternoon, and praying someone brings him his Haldol soon.

Luckyoldson said..."Are you actually saying he couldn't have gotten up, told the kids he had important business to attend to (so as not to scare them), then calmly accompany the secret service out of the school?"

Of course he could have. He didn't. It's a matter of perpetual bemusement to those of us in the reality-based community why you on the left think that this nothing point, this red herring at best, matters so damned much. He did exactly the same thing that we all did - he absorbed and coped in the manner that seemed most immediately appropriate. There are so many valid criticisms of George W. Bush that the continuing fixation on this nothing point is mystifying.

"I think Dick Cheney was running the show from day one and continues to run the show at this very moment in time."

Presonally, I think that we'd be in a lot better shape if that persistent liberal meme had an ounce of truth to it.

*When will you people get off the G.W. Bush bandwagon and wake up?"

I was never really on it, and to the extent I was, I jumped off and started taking pot shots at it after he nominated Miers.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A Republican state legislator who repeatedly voted against gay rights measures resigned his seat Wednesday amid revelations he had sex with a man he met at an erotic video store while in Spokane on a GOP retreat.

In a written statement, Rep. Richard Curtis, of La Center, said that while he believes he's done a lot of good during his time in the Legislature, "events that have recently come to light have hurt a lot of people."

Now, of course a gay Democrat would be able to just come out and say he (or she) was gay and that would be the end of it. But a lot of Republicans have made their careers by pandering to anti-gay voters on the far right, so they can't admit they are gay, if they are. Therefore they have no other choice than to prowl around video stores in Spokane and airport restrooms in Minneapolis and hope that they remain anonymous and undetected.

Pogo - Set phasers to mundane! ;) I have to admit that I suspect Card's recounting of what he said is not accurate, but I have no way to prove that instinct and no idea what he might actually have said.

anti-gay Republican legislator from Washington state resigns after having gay sex.

Shouldn't that be "in Washington state"? "From" makes it sound like he's a Congressman.

Now, of course a gay Democrat would be able to just come out and say he (or she) was gay and that would be the end of it. But a lot of Republicans have made their careers by pandering to anti-gay voters on the far right, so they can't admit they are gay, if they are.

Hm. If Republicans are anti-gay because they are "pandering" to the "far right", why was Bill Clinton anti-gay? Did he seriously think that he'd win "far right" voters over to his side? Of course not. The political mainstream is "anti-gay", Eli. That's why everyone from Sam Brownback to John Kerry panders to homophobia during elections.

According to Andy Card's timeline, he used the "America is under attack" line at 9:06am, after Bush was already in the classroom with the kids.

I think the people who obsess about Bush's failure to leap to his feet and race out of the building have just watched too many movies. The Presidency is an administrative job. Presidents are not there to bark orders and make snap decisions. Their job is to make policy and strategic decisions, and to appoint the people who handle the detail work (or in most cases the people who *manage* the people who do the detail work). Sure, the buck ultimately stops with the President -- but he's normally only supposed to act if the people below him aren't doing their jobs, and even then his role is usually confined to sacking them and replacing them with someone else.

"Are you actually saying he couldn't have gotten up, told the kids he had important business to attend to (so as not to scare them), then calmly accompany the secret service out of the school?"

Of course he couldn't do that. What he should have done is to jump up, set his hair on fire and run around in circles screaming ...Oh my God... We are under attack. Everyone duck under the desks Run for your lives.!!!! Mommy Mommy save me.

Or ...possibly, he was informed of the evolving situation (what little they knew at the time) and was told that his air transportation would be ready in 20 minutes and decided that the hair on fire thing was just a bit over the top, so he would continue his obligation to the children and not frighten them while the professionals in the military and intelligence departments were gathering information and analyzing the situation as it was unfolding.

I made it abundantly clear that he was a legislator. As to the rest of your post:

There are degrees of homophobia, but you are right on the whole. Democrats could do better at defending gay rights (I'm the first one to admit it) but nevertheless there is a big difference between Democrats who at least look for achievable solutions like civil unions and including sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws than Republicans who openly advocate discrimination against and even criminalizing gays.

That said, I stand by what I said, in that a number of openly gay Democrats are routinely elected and it's not an issue but openly gay Republican elected officials are indeed rare. For that matter, we had one here in Arizona (former Congressman Jim Kolbe) and in 2004 a far right legislator named Randy Graf ran against him and hammered on his sexuality in the primary (and got 43% of the GOP primary vote that year.) So last year Graf filed to run again, and Kolbe saw that his sexual orientation was going to be an issue again, got tired of being trashed by people in his own party and retired. The Republicans did in fact nominate Graf, Kolbe pointedly refused to endorse him, and the seat ended up being a pickup for Democrats as Gabrielle Giffords beat Graf by a wide margin.

The Cochise county Republicans got what they deserved, IMO. Intolerance (Graf was also notable in his bashing of immigrants) drives people away, and Democrats at least in that race benefitted from it.

A lot of my comment here uses Eli Blake's words so I hope you wont charge my allowed 200 words for his nonsense.

Tom

Eli Blake said.. "anti-gay Republican ...resigns after having gay sex.... with a man he met at an erotic video store ...a gay Democrat would be able to just come out and say he/she was gay...a lot of Republicans ...pander ... to anti-gay voters ... so they can't admit they are gay.. so unnecessary." Well, here is more proof of what feminism is responsible for. Gays, lesbians...are tramping up to the front of the line saying "equal rights" and all that nonsense.And the world dies more and more every day ( see my blog: jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com for more ). And we are forced to endure such politically correct -feminist- nonsense; me, I dont oppose anyone, no matter what he/she calls him-/herself. And gays and lez.. tend to be very "smart" people... also very nice -when you agree with them. But they are imbeciles because of feminist nonsense. However, it is and has been my experience that they are ALL hollow and empty, seeking for what they will not -can not- find the way they think, act and believe.And such is all the fault of that foolish nonsense known as feminism. People,all people, need a real challenge, something everyone can agree on. And feminism, homosexuality, lesbianism... just aint that. More's the pity, for all that nonsense only makes everything ever worse, worldwide. " So unnecessary ",indeed. Get rid of feminism and the world would be a much better place.

Also, there was a discussion on an earlier thread about the Democratic candidates dodging the 'pledge' to promise to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon if they are elected, and in particular Clinton's response that she would 'do everything in her power to prevent it.' Apparently that wasn't good enough for some, including Ann. I'm going to repost my comment here because it is critically crucial to understand that we are no longer Lords of the Earth, and have to learn to co-exist with other countries:

Here's my two cents:

How can a Presidential candidate pledge to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? All they CAN do is pledge to do 'everything in their power' to prevent it.

But the President isn't God, and he (or she) can't control everything that happens in the world. You might as well ask them to pledge that there won't be any more cases of genocide during their tenure, or that they will prevent the Chinese from making any more defective products, or prevent the Germans from raising taxes, or even that they will prevent there being any more murders in the United States. The truth is, there is only so much that anyone-- even the President-- can do.

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, it is sixty year old technology and it's pretty well known by now how to make one. The only real hitch is acquiring enough fissile material. Given how much of it is already missing just within the former Soviet Union, as well as the fact that much more sophisticated methods have been developed for enriching Uranium, that at least one country bordering Iran is known to have already developed nukes, and that Iran has had a nuclear reactor since the 1970s that we built for the Shah it follows that if Iran is dead set on building a nuke the truth is there is very little that the President could do about it.

That's just the plain truth of the matter.

To which I might also add: Thanks to the overextending of our military and their being bogged down in Iraq, there is now not even the credible threat of a ground invasion. We could indeed bomb the crap out of them, but history shows that it is possible to survive a bombing campaign, and if they 'take our best shot' and survive then in the world of middle eastern politics that actually represents a political victory for them.

More archive video footage has been unearthed that re-emphasizes the fact that President Bush lied about how he first came to know about the events of September 11, 2001.

ABC News reporter John Cochran told ABC's Peter Jennings, "He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff Andy Card whisper into his ear, then reporters said to the President 'do you know what's going on in New York'? - he said he did and would have something to say about it later."

This contradicts Bush's statement that he made on two separate occasions, that he first learned of what was going on in New York from watching a television outside of the classroom as he prepared to talk about education with a group of Florida schoolchildren.

*President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting: CNN, Aired December 4, 2001]

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

Obviously, Bush could not have seen the first plane hit the tower because there was no TV footage broadcast of it until the next day.

Occasion 2:

President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California: [whitehouse.gov, January 5, 2002]

"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..."

As has been well publicized, even after being told of the second plane hitting the south tower and that America was under attack, Bush sat reading a story about a pet goat for well over 5 minutes.

Luckyoldson said..."President Bush lied about how he first came to know about the events of September 11, 2001. ABC News reporter John Cochran told ABC's Peter Jennings, 'He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff Andy Card whisper into his ear, then reporters said to the President "do you know what's going on in New York"? - he said he did and would have something to say about it later.'"

Let me get this right: Cochran's claim is that as Bush was about to leave his hotel on the morning of Sept. 11, reporters asked him if he knew what was happening in New York, to which he responded he'd have something to say later?

If that's so, it seems to me that the only thing "re-emphasize[d]" by the "archive video footage" that you've "unearthed" is that the MSM lies. According to http://www.911timeline.net - not exactly a pro-Bush propaganda outfit - Bush left his hotel at 8:32 a.m, at which point, correct me if I'm wrong, very little was happening in New york.

You may have heard the strange story of how George Bush claimed to have seen the first plane hit the World Trade Tower on a television in Booker Elementary School before going into a classroom to hear some children read. This is a strange story because there were no live broadcasts of this impact.

Still stranger was Bush's reaction on being told of the second impact by chief of staff Andrew Card. There was none. Bush simply went on with the school visit and listened to children reading about a pet goat.

Congressmen are legislators. That's why it is called "the legislative branch". But yes, I know the quoted text mentioned he was a state legislator, my objection was to the text of your link.

Democrats could do better at defending gay rights (I'm the first one to admit it) but nevertheless there is a big difference between Democrats who at least look for achievable solutions like civil unions and including sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws than Republicans who openly advocate discrimination against and even criminalizing gays.

Eli, if you want to argue that Democrats talk a much better game on gay rights than Republicans do I freely concede that point. But in terms of actual accomplishments I fail to see the difference between the two parties. We've got Don't Ask Don't Tell, which was sponsored by a Democrat, passed by a Democratically-controlled Congress, and signed into law by a Democrat. We've got the DOMA, which was sponsored by both Republicans AND Democrats, passed with majority support from BOTH parties, and was signed by, again, a Democrat.

What's the Democrats' big claim to fame there? "Oh, we're the party of gay rights because a *smaller* majority of us voted to ostracize gay people"? Wow, sign those folks up for the Rainbow Parade!

there is a big difference between Democrats who at least look for achievable solutions like civil unions

Oh, yeah, a big difference. There's Hillary Clinton, who believes marriage should be strictly heterosexual but states should be free to enact civil union laws... and George Bush, who believes marriage should be strictly heterosexual but states should be free to enact civil union laws. Yes, I can clearly see the huge difference between those two positions.

Look at the political histories of the two likely Presidential candidates -- Hillary and Rudy -- and try telling me, with a straight face, that Hillary's the one with the better track record on gay issues. Now try telling me with a straight face that you, a Democrat, will back the pro-gay Rudy over the anti-gay Hillary. Or even that the so-called "gay rights movement" will be backing Rudy over Hillary.

Fat chance. And THAT, Eli, is why would don't see gay Republicans. They lose the Religious Right vote and gay rights supporters still treat them like lepers. Its all downside.

and including sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws

Many Republican voters (and almost all libertarian Republicans) oppose any attempt to expand anti-liberty laws against "discrimination". If I want to be free not to hire a Nazi or a Fred Phelps type I need to accept their right not to hire Jews or homosexuals.

How can a Presidential candidate pledge to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? All they CAN do is pledge to do 'everything in their power' to prevent it.

Obviously the President isn't omnipotent. But since "everything in the President's power" includes killing every living thing in Iran and reducing every structure to rubble in the space of a few hours, a task like "preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons" is obviously WELL within the realm of "things a President can do".

Now before the inevitable screams of "that would be evil" and "that would be a bad idea" start up, that's irrelevant. Maybe it would be a bad, evil thing to do, but the fact is that that would be within the power of President Hillary R. Clinton. So did she just promise to annihilate the country of Iran if she was otherwise unable to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons?

I suspect she didn't; I think she'd draw the line well before that. If so, that means that her claim to do "everything in her power" was a lie -- if she's willing to try to prevent Iran from getting nukes, there are limits on what she's willing to do to keep them from getting nukes that fall well short of doing "everything in her power". And I, for one, would like to hear more about what those limits are. Does she draw the line at attacking them at all? All she's actually *promised* to do is talk (whee) and inflict sanctions. Is there something she's willing to do beyond saying "Stop! Or I'll say Stop again!"?

And that, Eli, is why we're not satisfied with her response. Its literal meaning is almost certainly untrue, and its actual meaning is unknown.

Fair enough. But the text is subject to more or less the same arguments as the federal marriage amendment that has been proposed, and the federal marriage amendment is popularly read -- fairly or unfairly -- as banning homosexual marriages.

The 2003 version of the FMA included a clause that (technically, at least) forbid states from recognizing gay marriages or civil unions. Neither DOMA nor the 2004 version of the FMA included that restriction; under both of those it is legal for the states to recognize gay marriages (although it would probably be unconstitutional to use the word "marriage" to describe them). The 2004 FMA is actually less restrictive than the DOMA, in that it doesn't even ban *federal* recognition of gay marriage.

I really can't understand why a commenter who wants to be taken seriously here would use the word "bitch" like that. It's totally bizarre. Even if you hate HC, saying "bitch" makes it seem like you hate women generally. I don't get it at all.

I refrained from responding to that directly (though some other commenters did) but clearly it is a word which like the 'n' word is used to demean and dehumanize a person or a whole class of people based on gender, racial or other distinctions.

It would be not hard to have said exactly the same thing without resorting to a word that is so loaded with feelings of anger and hatred.

The truth is a "bitch" is as a "bitch" does. And Hillary Clinton is a "bitch" in my book EVEN THOUGH it is not completely her fault but, rather, the FAULT OF THE FEMINIST NONSENSE SHE SUBSCRIBES TO AND PUSHES AT EVERY CHANCE SHE GETS -insidious- ly, sneakily and deviously.

Balfegor, as Revenant alluded to, every version of a Federal Marriage Amendment I've seen proposed states that marriage "in the United States" will consist of one man and one woman, which I think amounts to an overt and outright ban.

I'll add that I've opposed these amendments in each instance, for two reasons. Firstly, in the abstract, I don't think the issue is apropriate for resolution at the federal level; the federal government can and ought to ensure that no one state forces its decision to change on the rest of the union, it has discharged that function in DOMA (which, unlike Robert Bork, I think the Supreme Court will uphold if and when it's challenged, although I certainly undestand Bork's skepticism), and there it ought to hang fire. And secondly, every proposal I've seen has included language to the effect of, "neither the federal Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be accorded to same-sex marriage." If they would only drop that language about no state constitution being construed to recognize same-sex marriage, I might even be able to support such an amendment, but it should be obvious that the federal constitution cannot possibly purport to authoritatively interpret the meaning of state law, including state constitutional law. The federal constitution says nothing about a right to gay marriage, and that may validly be clarified, but does the Constitution of New Jersey require gay marriage? the Constitution of Wisconsin? I have no idea. That's a problem for the people and institutions of those states to work out.

Dont you yet realize that your time has come and gone -and that you would really be better off thinking about your own survival (along with that of the rest of the human race) than beating your dead horse/dick. Or kissing bellys and thighs like the dykes and butch- dykes do; ask Ann about the practices of her neighborhood lesbian friends in Park Slope -orread the poems of Riilke (the 'best' lesbian poet ?) or Sappho- and see below.

Tom

Eli Blake said.. "anti-gay Republican ...resigns after having gay sex.... with a man he met at an erotic video store ...a gay Democrat would be able to just come out and say he/she was gay...a lot of Republicans ...pander ... to anti-gay voters ... so they can't admit they are gay.. so unnecessary." Well, here is more proof of what feminism is responsible for. Gays, lesbians... are tramping up to the front of the line saying "equal rights" and all that nonsense. And the world dies more and more every day ( see my blog: jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com for more ). And we are forced to endure such politically correct -feminist- nonsense; me, I dont oppose anyone, no matter what he/she calls him-/herself. And gays and lez.. tend to be very "smart" people... also very nice -when you agree with them. But they are imbeciles because of feminist nonsense. However, it is and has been my experience that they are ALL hollow and empty, seeking for what they will not -can not- find the way they think, act and believe. And such is all the fault of that foolish nonsense known as feminism. People, all people, need a real challenge, something everyone can agree on. And feminism, homosexuality, lesbianism... just aint that. More's the pity, for all that nonsense only makes everything ever worse, worldwide. " So unnecessary ",indeed. Get rid of feminism and the world would be a much better place.

tc said..."Hillary Clinton is a 'bitch' in my book EVEN THOUGH it is not completely her fault but, rather, the FAULT OF THE FEMINIST NONSENSE SHE SUBSCRIBES TO AND PUSHES AT EVERY CHANCE SHE GETS...."

At the risk of dignifying this schlock with a response, if someone is a bitch because of an intellectual theory that they voluntarily subscribe to - and thus could voluntarily renounce - and a fortiori if they are an evangelist for that cause ("pushes at every chance she gets") how do they escape responsibility for that attribute?

Obnoxious women are called "bitches" because calling them "bastards" or "assholes" sounds weird and most of the other profane one-word insults are synonyms for "penis". The term "bitch" is a legacy of sexism, but only in the sense that centuries of society frowning on the use of profanity around women has left the English language woefully under-equipped with good insults to use on people who happen to be female. We're left with "bitch" and the infamous c-word.

Then again, tc IS action-packed with issues about women, so he probably meant it in a sexist way.

Pardon the interruption but I've got to be off-blog for awhile. Could someone please shoot me an email if an excerpt from chapter 5 of “Hate Me, Hate You, A Tale of Despair and Loathing in The 21stCentury" by LawGiver gets posted? Thanks in advance.

"Estimate the ratio of women to men in the world of Andrew Sullivan. See my point?"

Well there just aren't that many women hanging around the "bear" bars in Provincetown. And if Sully found one there, he'd most likely be afraid of her, and for good reason. She'd be able to kick his sorry ass.

The problem with using the word is that (just like the 'c' word) it is intentionally insulting and demeaning, in a very hurtful way. Further it is in a way which is by implication hurtful to all women, not just the one you are singling out.

No one argues that it should be illegal to say that word (or for that matter the 'n' word or any other word which is hurtful or demeaning), but I would suggest that using it suggests that rather than being able to point at anything specific to criticize the person either has a very limited vocabulary or has graduated beyond criticism and has a blind hatred towards whoever they are talking about.

I'm a liberal, but I never have a reason to use that word, even if I'm talking about Ann Coulter. It's just a word that should never be used (and if you are worried about it, I never use any of the words that refer to a male sex organ either.) There really is no reason to do so.

The problem with using the word is that (just like the 'c' word) it is intentionally insulting and demeaning, in a very hurtful way.

Well obviously it is intentionally insulting and demeaning in a hurtful way. That would be the whole *point* of an insult, actually.

Further it is in a way which is by implication hurtful to all women, not just the one you are singling you

I might, possibly, be willing to believe that if it wasn't for the fact that pretty much every woman I know, my mother and sisters included, is willing to use the term to refer to obnoxious women they dislike. But you're welcome to explain how, exactly, it is "hurtful to all women".

No one argues that it should be illegal to say that word (or for that matter the 'n' word or any other word which is hurtful or demeaning)

Wha? There are plenty of people on the left (and a few on the right) who think that "hate speech" should be illegal, and certainly any term that is "demeaning to all women" would make that list. Or did you just mean that neither you nor Ann want the words outlawed?

I would suggest that using it suggests that rather than being able to point at anything specific to criticize the person either has a very limited vocabulary or has graduated beyond criticism and has a blind hatred towards whoever they are talking about.

Eh, that's silly. You know I've got a good vocabulary and I'm certainly willing to go into unending detail about exactly what I dislike about the people I dislike. But I also sometimes just insult someone -- not because I can't go into detail, but because I don't think the person's worth the effort. Is every person who says "Bush is an asshole" incapable of reasoning and driven by blind hatred of white men?

I'm willing to yield on the issue of the c-word (despite the fact that there isn't a man I've ever met who thinks being called a dick is an insult to mankind). But complaining about the use of "bitch" is like complaining about using the word "fox" to refer to an attractive woman (or man).

My Pet Goat tells more about Mr. Bush than Iraq and Katrina combined. With all due respect, the time line of the North Tower, starting the story, learning about the Second Tower and still sitting there like a dolt should have told you as it did tell the world, that Mr. Bush was and remains in quite far over his head. Quite far.

I really can't understand why a commenter who wants to be taken seriously here would use the word "bitch" like that. It's totally bizarre. Even if you hate HC, saying "bitch" makes it seem like you hate women generally. I don't get it at all.

Too bad you're both wrong... unless you also condemn Hillary for calling President Bush a "son-of-a-bitch" -- her candid response upon learning of Bush's surprise visit upstaging her own planned breathtakingly dramatic visit to Baghdad.

BTW, ricpic's comment (#4 in this thread) sounds more bored than angry. Referring to Hillary as "the bitch" simply expresses what most people, afraid of sounding impolite, truly think of her.